{
  "txid": "74e992b75b0957bb6572ad77b2a629e072edbeeefbf22f58afac68654443c9af",
  "block_height": 946457,
  "time": null,
  "app": "treechat",
  "type": "reply",
  "map_content": "Do you mean disruptiveness,? Well there is so many quatam  computer counter arguement essays ive lost count. There is one that delves precicely into the exact mechanics in detail about quantam resistence.\r\nI think it is the 10 minute interval of the blockchain combined with other factors.\r\nThe main one being, once a large quantam computer  hack , of the blockchain happens , firstly i ask for proof that one exists, that is what you should firstly address.\r\nAparently there isnt  a functioning logical cubit machine. So the sheer cost of one of these machines, one could asume it could be located, and the  hacker wouldnt be targeting 10 dollars, so lets say if it happened the cost of losing the machine to confiscation apparently does not make it a logical criminal act of theft, how much is one of the totally fake quantam computers 10 mill 20 mill.\r\nRisk losing 20 mill to get 20 mill. And im still waiting for the source where i learn from to be incorrect ince about his mathematical analisis of this topic , and im waiting for the msm to make one just one sound report about quantum computers and Bitcoin. So i wont even bother digging.\r\nIll simply need to see evidence that ten years of research without 1 critical error  is not enough to determine that someone takes their figures very very very seriously. For example , if the beyond surgical accuracy of knowledge of  Bitcoin theory was incorect maybe by one equation, teranode simply couldnt have been built. Im really puching out of my weight division here but i have heard the piece that disputes quantam computer theory at such a high degrree  that im not even going to read one article ever about them unless its one debunking the tech.\r\nAnd also the way Bitcoin is designed there is particular processes ,stages parts components of the system infrastructure that address your querry about quantam resistence if on the statistically miniscule probability that the material debunking quantam computer theory , the exact words are in the essay.\r\nIn fact it says . No the theory may be sound but the key element here is not theoretically in 50 or more years. It is in practice reality, and the forecast of the minimum time it would be  to construct a effective working computer that exists and the mathamatics and computer engineering involved.\r\nTen or maybe a bit less years ago, the first thing i heard about super computer science was  the absolute ignorence of people thinking that not only hashes need to be broken , the machine that doesnt exist would have to be hidden untraceble,  and the other safe guards which the article / articles im refering to go into maticulous details explaining would have to be somehow bypassed , and my own assumption  and i think ill stop there, as these articles specifically state people are hypothesising theorizeing  theoretical quatam computer computation scenarios. Not adressing the claim that we are vastly being misinformed about the true time it will take to build one of these machines that i will simply not enter into a hypothetical theoretical debate or discussion.. but have already posted three essays specifically explaing your point in the last supper painting thread at top if my treechat steeam and will even listen to them all again, and then post even more, of them, and will basically put my reputation up for wager, what last shreds of it remain that i simply believe its  time wasted for all involved.\r\nIll side with the guy that consistenly proves them all wrong, not one person in the world has ever to my knowledge  even get through the first round of a debate with him and not looked like an idiot. Unfortunately the situation is that ridiculous .\r\nOk mate gotta call it a day im buggered. Hope ive helped without being too cringe. Just trying to guide you to the best of my ability, and do not claim to have detailed figures, and am not really giving you an answer more sharing my thought process as to how i experience deal with all this tech, theory.\r\nI break it into foundational components and try to be honest, why claim to know if you infact dont.\r\nBut its easy to be ahead and correct when all someone 1 out of billions of people on earth in the last ten years would need to do is produce one sound rebutal of the so far proven bitcoin design and asosiated theory.. \r\nSo hope i havnt been rude and am just sharing my belief , observation, which is vastly different to understanding the exact advanced technical details,  and im not claiming much , just stating the truth that i havea rough understanding of the critical or some of them fields to maybe be able to . Yeah im just not claiming much thats why i think there maybe a few errors in my communications , its not that hard to parrot knowledge bits of it that have been handed to you on a silver platter, maybe i have just a better than average abbility to firstly not say stuff that i either dont know,  or make assumptions of things. \r\n Ok the actual material i didnt think i would find, and especially today has been found and posted,  and am not claiming to to have any more answers or anything. But i have somewhat attempted to share my understanding. In the hope that it beneficial.",
  "media_type": "text/markdown",
  "filename": "|",
  "author": "14aqJ2hMtENYJVCJaekcrqi12fiZJzoWGK",
  "display_name": "MarkKordusic",
  "channel": null,
  "parent_txid": "66e63f8e29bcec8e6d278789ff4323cef49adbb71289e3d01d3e90cafed2405a",
  "ref_txid": null,
  "tags": null,
  "reply_count": 1,
  "like_count": 1,
  "timestamp": "2026-04-26T05:38:06.000Z",
  "media_url": null,
  "aip_verified": true,
  "has_access": true,
  "attachments": [],
  "ui_name": "MarkKordusic",
  "ui_display_name": "MarkKordusic",
  "ui_handle": "MarkKordusic",
  "ui_display_raw": "MarkKordusic",
  "ui_signer": "14aqJ2hMtENYJVCJaekcrqi12fiZJzoWGK",
  "ref_ui_name": "unknown",
  "ref_ui_signer": "unknown"
}